Read more at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/agc-gets-go-ahead-to-start-contempt-of-court-proceedings-against-9143714
(Updated: )
Estan Ace ·
This is a case of big bullying the little, a very petty leader his gangs.
Ricky Lim ·
(1) His father and his aunt says "PM abuse system, thus lose confidence in the Gov".
(2) The allegation is debated in Parliament - and the conclusion is "The allegation is not true". But will not sue.
(3) A truce is called by his father and his aunt - and will not post on social media.
(4) Now he broke the truce and wrote "Singapore government is very litigious and has a pliant court system." - which means "Gov abuse system".
--- So it means this chap again repeat the allegation that "Gov abuse system ---- with pliant Court system".
--- So is this chap bullying the Gov or the Gov bullying this chap?
Who started this allegation? This chap or the Gov?
So is he abusing the "social media" to libel Gov?
(2) The allegation is debated in Parliament - and the conclusion is "The allegation is not true". But will not sue.
(3) A truce is called by his father and his aunt - and will not post on social media.
(4) Now he broke the truce and wrote "Singapore government is very litigious and has a pliant court system." - which means "Gov abuse system".
--- So it means this chap again repeat the allegation that "Gov abuse system ---- with pliant Court system".
--- So is this chap bullying the Gov or the Gov bullying this chap?
Who started this allegation? This chap or the Gov?
So is he abusing the "social media" to libel Gov?
Like · Reply · Just now
Ricky Lim ·
This chap is given the opportunity to apologise and remove the libel statement.
But this chap is not relenting and in fact try to twist his statement to further challenge :-
"Mr Li did not delete the post by the extended deadline on Aug 4, although he edited it to “clarify (his) meaning”.
“If my private post is read in context, it is evident that I did not attack the Singapore judiciary,” Mr Li wrote.
“Any criticism I made is of the Singapore government’s litigious nature, and its use of legal rules and actions to stifle the free press.”
So who is abusing the system?
This chap or the Gov?
You expect this chap to "box" the Gov - and the Gov "let him box" and don't respond?
But this chap is not relenting and in fact try to twist his statement to further challenge :-
"Mr Li did not delete the post by the extended deadline on Aug 4, although he edited it to “clarify (his) meaning”.
“If my private post is read in context, it is evident that I did not attack the Singapore judiciary,” Mr Li wrote.
“Any criticism I made is of the Singapore government’s litigious nature, and its use of legal rules and actions to stifle the free press.”
So who is abusing the system?
This chap or the Gov?
You expect this chap to "box" the Gov - and the Gov "let him box" and don't respond?
Like · Reply · Just now
Ricky Lim ·
If AGC don't respond --- then what this chap say must be true ---- and Singapore Government and Court reputation will be tarnished overnight --- and soon all over US press will publish this.
So as Singaporeans, is that what you want to see Singapore's Government system go down the drain --- that was so painfully built up by his Grandfather?
So as Singaporeans, is that what you want to see Singapore's Government system go down the drain --- that was so painfully built up by his Grandfather?
Like · Reply · Just now
Ricky Lim ·
In fact, his father, his aunt and this chap --- make the most damaging statement about Singapore, the Government and the System --- where a dedicated Parliament need to be called to address those damaging statement - in order to reinstatement the Nation reputation.
Now this chap reopen the wound and rub it will salt all over again.
So you mean AGC now take his comment head on - is called bullying?
Then what about those damaging statement that make about Singapore (millions of Singapore lives and livelihood) - is not bullying?
Where is the sense of justice?
Now this chap reopen the wound and rub it will salt all over again.
So you mean AGC now take his comment head on - is called bullying?
Then what about those damaging statement that make about Singapore (millions of Singapore lives and livelihood) - is not bullying?
Where is the sense of justice?
Like · Reply · Just now
Ricky Lim ·
Next, by making a "libel statement" in a private setting - to a small group of friends --- will this amount to "defamation"?
A libel statement make is a defamation - whether to a small group of friends or to the public at large.
Because the purpose is for the small group of friends - to start spreading rumor (in a termite effect) to harm the reputation of Singapore - especially the source of the libel statement come from a person who carry weight --- where especially this person is a special person who is the descendant of the founding father.
This all the more make the libel statement weighty --- especially this damage the Country and its system - where the livelihood of millions of citizens depends on.
A libel statement make is a defamation - whether to a small group of friends or to the public at large.
Because the purpose is for the small group of friends - to start spreading rumor (in a termite effect) to harm the reputation of Singapore - especially the source of the libel statement come from a person who carry weight --- where especially this person is a special person who is the descendant of the founding father.
This all the more make the libel statement weighty --- especially this damage the Country and its system - where the livelihood of millions of citizens depends on.
Roland Yeo
Ricky Lim
Based on your logic all criticisms of our government by anybody in private can be construed as defamatory especially those at
coffee shops and during gatherings among friends and family members.
Wow.. our government is truly 'untouchable'...
Based on your logic all criticisms of our government by anybody in private can be construed as defamatory especially those at
coffee shops and during gatherings among friends and family members.
Wow.. our government is truly 'untouchable'...
Ricky Lim ·
Roland Yeo - if you defamed someone and that someone decide to sue you, he can win in court. This is the right even for any private citizen not only the Government.
So people can talk, if it is true, there is no defamation.
But if the statement is defamatory and is not true, and if someone got evidence and decide to sue, then be prepared to defend in court.
Now this chap has alot of history accumulated by his father, his aunt and himself - and a big hoo-haa has just completed in Parliament and he broke the truce. So if he is so gung-ho, then prepared to defend himself.
So people can talk, if it is true, there is no defamation.
But if the statement is defamatory and is not true, and if someone got evidence and decide to sue, then be prepared to defend in court.
Now this chap has alot of history accumulated by his father, his aunt and himself - and a big hoo-haa has just completed in Parliament and he broke the truce. So if he is so gung-ho, then prepared to defend himself.
Like · Reply · Just now
Ricky Lim ·
DEFAMATION ACT
(CHAPTER 75)
(Original Enactment: M. Ordinance 20 of 1957)
REVISED EDITION 2014
(28th February 2014)
An Act relating to libel and slander and other malicious falsehoods.
[6th May 1965]
Short title
1. This Act may be cited as the Defamation Act.
Interpretation
2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires —
“broadcasting by means of telecommunication” means publication for general reception by means of telecommunication;
“newspaper” means any paper containing public news or observations thereon or consisting wholly or mainly of advertisements which is printed for sale and is published in Singapore either periodically or in parts or numbers at intervals not exceeding 36 days;
“telecommunication” means any system for the transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writings, images and sounds of all kinds by means of radiowaves, wire, cable or other electro-magnetic systems;
“words” includes pictures, visual images, gestures and other methods of signifying meaning.
[3/80]
Broadcast statements
3. For the purposes of the law of libel and slander, the broadcasting of words by means of telecommunication shall be treated as publication in a permanent form.
---
The above Act can be exercise by anyone - whether you are a Government, businessman, professional, artiste, or any man in the street.
(CHAPTER 75)
(Original Enactment: M. Ordinance 20 of 1957)
REVISED EDITION 2014
(28th February 2014)
An Act relating to libel and slander and other malicious falsehoods.
[6th May 1965]
Short title
1. This Act may be cited as the Defamation Act.
Interpretation
2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires —
“broadcasting by means of telecommunication” means publication for general reception by means of telecommunication;
“newspaper” means any paper containing public news or observations thereon or consisting wholly or mainly of advertisements which is printed for sale and is published in Singapore either periodically or in parts or numbers at intervals not exceeding 36 days;
“telecommunication” means any system for the transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writings, images and sounds of all kinds by means of radiowaves, wire, cable or other electro-magnetic systems;
“words” includes pictures, visual images, gestures and other methods of signifying meaning.
[3/80]
Broadcast statements
3. For the purposes of the law of libel and slander, the broadcasting of words by means of telecommunication shall be treated as publication in a permanent form.
---
The above Act can be exercise by anyone - whether you are a Government, businessman, professional, artiste, or any man in the street.
Like · Reply · Just now
Ricky Lim ·
Defamation under Tort law - is a widely adopted universal law.
Even US has similar Defamation Law even though US champion "free speech" :-
Defamation Law falls under Tort Law. It refers to false statements about a person, communicated as fact to one or more other persons by an individual or entity (such as a person, newspaper, magazine, or political organization), which causes damage and does harm to the target’s reputation and/or standing in the community. Defamation is addressed primarily by state legislation. However, Constitutional Law may also apply, as the right of freedom of speech also extends to certain defamation claims. Defamation is categorized as either Slander or Libel.
The general harm caused by defamation is identified as being ridiculed, shamed, hated, scorned, belittled or held in contempt by others, and lowers him/her in esteem of a reasonably prudent person, due to the communication of the false statement. This tort can result in a lawsuit for damages. Many states have statutes requiring that the allegedly damaged party must first demand a printed retraction of the defamatory statement, before they may proceed to court. If the plaintiff proceeds with a lawsuit without first seeking the retraction or if he/she receives a retraction but proceeds anyway, most states will limit the damages they may pursue to the actual or special damages they experienced, such as loss of employment or wages.
Malice – if intentional malice can be shown/proven, than the act usually qualifies as defamation for damage to one’s reputation. However, even without this, if it is obvious that the statement would do harm and that it is untrue, one can still pursue this tort if he/she can demonstrate actual/tangible harm, such as loss of business (called special damages).
Libel is defamatory statements and/or pictures published in print or writing; or broadcast in the media, such as over the radio, on TV or in film. The publication does not need to be made to more than one person to qualify as libel. However, it must be represented as a fact, not an opinion. If one libels the reputation of a deceased person, the target’s heirs may be able to bring an action for damages.
Oral defamatory statements are categorized as slander. Damages for slander are generally more difficult to identify and prove; although when malice is involved, it can be easier to accomplish. These statements must also be represented as fact, rather than just an opinion, to be considered slanderous. Slander of title refers to a remark regarding property ownership which maligns the owner and his/her ability to transfer the property, and results in a monetary loss.
Defamation Per Se refers to defamatory statements that are so vicious and the harm is so obvious, that malice is assumed, and proof of intent is not required for general damages (i.e. falsely accusing someone of committing a crime involving immorality; claiming someone has a repugnant, contagious disease; or statements claiming that the individual is unfit or unable to perform his employment duties.) Most states specifically recognize these categories of false statements as defamatory per se. Libel per se is also referred to as libel on its face, meaning it meets all the required elements without further proof. Defamation Per Quod is the opposite of per se, in that it is not obvious and extrinsic proof is required to demonstrate that the communication was damaging.
Even US has similar Defamation Law even though US champion "free speech" :-
Defamation Law falls under Tort Law. It refers to false statements about a person, communicated as fact to one or more other persons by an individual or entity (such as a person, newspaper, magazine, or political organization), which causes damage and does harm to the target’s reputation and/or standing in the community. Defamation is addressed primarily by state legislation. However, Constitutional Law may also apply, as the right of freedom of speech also extends to certain defamation claims. Defamation is categorized as either Slander or Libel.
The general harm caused by defamation is identified as being ridiculed, shamed, hated, scorned, belittled or held in contempt by others, and lowers him/her in esteem of a reasonably prudent person, due to the communication of the false statement. This tort can result in a lawsuit for damages. Many states have statutes requiring that the allegedly damaged party must first demand a printed retraction of the defamatory statement, before they may proceed to court. If the plaintiff proceeds with a lawsuit without first seeking the retraction or if he/she receives a retraction but proceeds anyway, most states will limit the damages they may pursue to the actual or special damages they experienced, such as loss of employment or wages.
Malice – if intentional malice can be shown/proven, than the act usually qualifies as defamation for damage to one’s reputation. However, even without this, if it is obvious that the statement would do harm and that it is untrue, one can still pursue this tort if he/she can demonstrate actual/tangible harm, such as loss of business (called special damages).
Libel is defamatory statements and/or pictures published in print or writing; or broadcast in the media, such as over the radio, on TV or in film. The publication does not need to be made to more than one person to qualify as libel. However, it must be represented as a fact, not an opinion. If one libels the reputation of a deceased person, the target’s heirs may be able to bring an action for damages.
Oral defamatory statements are categorized as slander. Damages for slander are generally more difficult to identify and prove; although when malice is involved, it can be easier to accomplish. These statements must also be represented as fact, rather than just an opinion, to be considered slanderous. Slander of title refers to a remark regarding property ownership which maligns the owner and his/her ability to transfer the property, and results in a monetary loss.
Defamation Per Se refers to defamatory statements that are so vicious and the harm is so obvious, that malice is assumed, and proof of intent is not required for general damages (i.e. falsely accusing someone of committing a crime involving immorality; claiming someone has a repugnant, contagious disease; or statements claiming that the individual is unfit or unable to perform his employment duties.) Most states specifically recognize these categories of false statements as defamatory per se. Libel per se is also referred to as libel on its face, meaning it meets all the required elements without further proof. Defamation Per Quod is the opposite of per se, in that it is not obvious and extrinsic proof is required to demonstrate that the communication was damaging.
No comments:
Post a Comment